Madkins007

Re: Jesus' return- late?

As someone already tried to point out, but was apparently ignored, Jesus DID return at about 70 AD. This is noted by Josephus (The Jewish Wars 6.5.3) and Tacticus (Histories 5.16). The prophecy about His return 'coming in the clouds' used Old Testament imagry of judgement that the Jews would have been very familiar with.

The website 'Planet Preterist' has an outline that might be of interest- it outlines the various 'end times' prophecies and demonstrates pretty convincingly how they were fulfilled in the Jewish War, about 70AD (i.e.- 'The Beast' was Emperor Nero- whose nickname was the Beast and who fulfills each of the other prophecies.

'Preterism', by the way, is the belief that all or some of the traditional end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. While condemned by many churches, it goes a LONG way to explaining many of the 'difficult' passages of the Bible, such as the arguement about the 'generation passing away'.

The previously mentioned outline is here: http://planetpreterist.com/downloads...m_outline.pdf. PLEASE read it before making any comments like "but what about the bits about wars and rumors of wars, famines, etc.?" They are all covered in the outline (and, interestingly, the book of Acts records wars, rumors of wars, famines, etc. unlike those known previously by that generation!)

Madkins007

Re: rabbits chewing cud.

This one ticks me off when used as a contradiction, because there is no evidence it is.

The term used in the Bible is 'gehrah', used 9 times in the Old Testament, always in reference to clean or unclean foods.

Our MODERN defintion of cud is "food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first stomach to be chewed again", based on an older Sanskrit for GUM. Do you think that the whole 'food from the first stomach' bit was present in the original meanings of the word 'cud'?

IS IT REASONABLE to assume that the King James translators used it as the 'first stomach' word, OR as the 'gum chewing' word?

What we have here is a word that is not completely understood from ancient hebrew. IF it is supposed to mean the 'first stomach' bit, THEN it is an error. IF it just means 'chews stuff all day' or 'makes a gum chewing action', THEN it is NOT an error.

Trying to shoehorn modern definitions on old words is not a fair way to generate a contradictions list.

Abel Stable

I can't recall the verse, but aren't bats also referred to as birds? Or did the word used just mean "flying animal" or something.

Tod

As someone already tried to point out, but was apparently ignored, Jesus DID return at about 70 AD. This is noted by Josephus (The Jewish Wars 6.5.3) and Tacticus (Histories 5.16). The prophecy about His return 'coming in the clouds' used Old Testament imagry of judgement that the Jews would have been very familiar with.

Of course it was ignored, it seemed to speak against itself on its own terms! Jesus returning during the fall of Judah to the Romans. That's a hoot in of itself, and it requires no commentator to point out the flaws in the reasoning.

But if you absolutely insist that somebody address this nonsense it is easy enough. That "Jesus DID return at about 70 AD" most definitely is NOT reported by Josephus or Tacticus. You can't get out a claim like that without citing a reference.

The destruction of the temple in 70 AD that Josephus does report does not constitute a fulfillment of Jesus' promise to return simply because a prediction of the Temple's destruction was included in the same rant. Obviously....

If I predict a manned mission to Mars and continue on a tirade that includes a prediction that afterwards an alien race will invade us, and we do indeed go to Mars, the fact that I was right about that doesn't mean that some how it must be the case that aliens have invaded us in some invisible manner as well.

Furthermore, there simply is no evidence that Jesus returned. Let's not forget that very crucial point!

The website 'Planet Preterist' has an outline that might be of interest- it outlines the various 'end times' prophecies and demonstrates pretty convincingly how they were fulfilled in the Jewish War, about 70AD (i.e.- 'The Beast' was Emperor Nero- whose nickname was the Beast and who fulfills each of the other prophecies.

'Preterism', by the way, is the belief that all or some of the traditional end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. While condemned by many churches, it goes a LONG way to explaining many of the 'difficult' passages of the Bible, such as the arguement about the 'generation passing away'.

The previously mentioned outline is here: http://planetpreterist.com/downloads...m_outline.pdf. PLEASE read it before making any comments like "but what about the bits about wars and rumors of wars, famines, etc.?" They are all covered in the outline (and, interestingly, the book of Acts records wars, rumors of wars, famines, etc. unlike those known previously by that generation!)

I'd love to read it, but I get a "File not Found" error when I try. It sounds like an interesting read to be sure.

Madkins007

re: Bats as birds

It is in Lev. 11:19 (and Deut 14:8, same basic situation) as part of a list of 'fowl' that are unclean.

The common arguement is that, since it is included in a list of birds, it must be being counted as a bird', which assumes that not only God, but the Hebrews are dumb as rocks.

In fact, the word for 'fowl' in the King James Bible is -'owph-, which means (as you probably already guessed) 'flying things', including insects.

This is borne out by the last bits of the 'fowl list' (Lev 11:20-23, NASB) "20 'All the winged insects that walk on {all} fours are detestable to you. 21 'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on {all} fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. 22 'These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. 23 'But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."

Which brings us to the classic 'locusts have 4 legs?" bit. Now, locusts (etc.) were a FOOD SOURCE- they were well-known, seen every day up close and personal. There IS NO WAY that the Hebrews could have missed that they have 6 legs, and if God had ANY omnipotence, He HAS to know this as well, so what's the deal?

The simplist solution is that the phrase 'on all fours' is an idiom for something 'walking on its feet, or paws, or whatevers'. No big deal! (Except to the fundies and critics who insist that each and every word, whether in context or not, has to be perfectly accurate. These people do not recognize the idea of 'common usage', which is too bad.

'Common usage', folk language, idioms, popular (if erroneous) imagery, etc. are what made the Bible real, vital, and comprehensible to the average person then.

Javaman

Would you please explain, clearly, what you mean by this. Or is this just a "could've" situation? Some of those present could have had a vision of Heaven? Anything to make Jesus the Messiah. He'll clear up all the loose end-type prophesies on his second coming, right?

Prophetessofrage

Hi All, interesting conversation. Let me say this, I wholly agree that the Bible is seemingly full of contradictions. There's no doubt about that. However, a passage in the Bible itself states, 'the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life' (2 Cor. 3:6). What that means is the contradictions if just looked at upon the surface, won't make sense. After all, you are dealing with writings from different time periods in history. In depth inquiry into the matters does explain away the contradictions.

Let's take your example of 'Abraham.' Perhaps the matter is Abraham knew of the name of the Lord, but did not have the deep insight to the relevance of that 'Name' of the Lord. That would be one legitimate answer to the seemingly contradiction. Let us remember, names meant a lot in that ancient era. You named your children, land, possessions, after the many names of 'God' and each name had a significant meaning.

For instance, the Bible refers to God by many names, El-Shaddai, Jehovah, Yahweh, The Lord of Hosts, etc.. So perhaps, Abraham knew of God as Yahweh, but not as Jehovah, and when he learned of the spiritual significance of God as "Jehovah" he proclaimed it. See what I mean?

For the record, life is full of contradictions in any period of history. Many call the U.S. the greatest land on the earth, and while it is, it was also a land founded on racist, sexist, evil. How then can it be great, with such evil prevalent? It seems a contradiction, but it it not. So it is with many of the seemingly contradictions in the Bible.

CJD

I think the Prophetessofrage is on to something.

You should probably agree, Tod, since she hasn't made this up. It is widely known that in the ANE that personal names gave significant information about the one who bears it. Just a cursory glance at the Tanak will reveal the same thing—that just about every author is concerned with names, and not for the same reasons that we moderns are (to penetrate Israel's history of religion, for example). God's various names, for the ancient writers, were important because they revealed the character of God.

In typical formulaic fashion, God tells Moses, "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob [this is another way of saying I appeared to your "forefathers," "the patriarchs," "those who came before you as my people," etc.] . . ." (Ex. 6:3). To the patriarchs, he was the self-sufficient Almighty. To the people of Moses' day, he was the Lord of the covenant. To be sure, he made a covenant with the patriarchs, not the least of which Abe. So, maybe Abe did indeed know God at least a little as YHWH (Jehovah, BTW Prophetessofrage, is the same name), but not fully, since he did not see any fulfillments of the covenant in his lifetime. In other words, Abe knew God was the covenant Lord, but he didn't know it existentially. He only promised while Abe was yet a sojourner, but Moses and the Israelites knew him now as the one who would bring those promises to pass.

So, does Exodus 6:3 read "I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by name YHWH I did not . . ."[Meaning specifically and technically the letters that make up the name YHWH]; or does it read "I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by name YHWH I did not . . ."[Meaning that aspect of his character, namely, that he is the Lord of the covenant]?

Besides, isn't methodologically suspect to pit a chapter and verse against another chapter and verse when "chapters and verses" are an imposition of Western linear thinking on the text? It's an ancient book; why treat it like systematic textbook?

There is a bit more to say, and Brevard Childs has already said it best (on pages 112–116 of his commentary on the Exodus pericope in question).

Regards,

CJD

Tod

Hi All, interesting conversation. Let me say this, I wholly agree that the Bible is seemingly full of contradictions. There's no doubt about that. However, a passage in the Bible itself states, 'the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life' (2 Cor. 3:6). What that means is the contradictions if just looked at upon the surface, won't make sense. After all, you are dealing with writings from different time periods in history. In depth inquiry into the matters does explain away the contradictions.

Let's take your example of 'Abraham.' Perhaps the matter is Abraham knew of the name of the Lord, but did not have the deep insight to the relevance of that 'Name' of the Lord. That would be one legitimate answer to the seemingly contradiction.

I don't know about "legitimate." There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the author of Exodus meant for us to understand the statement to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name instead of meaning exactly what it says, that he simply didn't know his name. That is a wild guess with no basis for believing it to be true.

The fact that the ancient Hebrews may have seen significance to a name doesn't mean that when they said a person didn't know another's name that they meant anything other than the person didn't know their name!

For instance, the Bible refers to God by many names, El-Shaddai, Jehovah, Yahweh, The Lord of Hosts, etc.. So perhaps, Abraham knew of God as Yahweh, but not as Jehovah, and when he learned of the spiritual significance of God as "Jehovah" he proclaimed it. See what I mean?

No, I don't see what you mean, since "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" are the same identical name in Hebrew! Both names come from the hebrew "YHWH." In ancient hebrew there are no vowels and J and Y are the same character, as well as V and W. The difference lies only in the english translation of the word. The first guess was that a J and V were correct, and that e,o, and a were the appropriate vowels to fill in the blanks. Now it is assumed that the correct pronounciation involves the use of Y and W, and filling in the vowels as a and e.

Tod

I think the Prophetessofrage is on to something.

You should probably agree, Tod, since she hasn't made this up.

No, I shouldn't agree, because as pointed out in my reply to the original poster, there is no reason to think this is what the author meant the reader to believe. Especially when the verse in question specifically says that Abraham knew him as El Shaddai and NOT as Yahweh!

The fact that the Hebrews at the time may have put significance to a name, something common to many cultures throughout history, doesn't at all act as evidence that this is what is meant here. It is just a guess, and a reaching one at that.

In typical formulaic fashion, God tells Moses, "I am the LORD. I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob [this is another way of saying I appeared to your "forefathers," "the patriarchs," "those who came before you as my people," etc.] . . ." (Ex. 6:3). To the patriarchs, he was the self-sufficient Almighty. To the people of Moses' day, he was the Lord of the covenant. To be sure, he made a covenant with the patriarchs, not the least of which Abe. So, maybe Abe did indeed know God at least a little as YHWH (Jehovah, BTW Prophetessofrage, is the same name), but not fully, since he did not see any fulfillments of the covenant in his lifetime.

"Maybe" he did, "maybe" he didn't, but the verse outright says he did not, it doesn't say that he just didn't know the significance of his name.

"Maybe"s are a dime a dozen. They don't solve any problems with the text.

In other words, Abe knew God was the covenant Lord, but he didn't know it existentially. He only promised while Abe was yet a sojourner, but Moses and the Israelites knew him now as the one who would bring those promises to pass.

So, does Exodus 6:3 read "I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by name YHWH I did not . . ."[Meaning specifically and technically the letters that make up the name YHWH]; or does it read "I appeared to Abe, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but by name YHWH I did not . . ."[Meaning that aspect of his character, namely, that he is the Lord of the covenant]?

This is getting rather silly. The author, had he chose to convey this meaning, could have more than adequately done so. Again this is pure and baseless speculation.

Besides, isn't methodologically suspect to pit a chapter and verse against another chapter and verse when "chapters and verses" are an imposition of Western linear thinking on the text? It's an ancient book; why treat it like systematic textbook?

It doesn't matter how it is organized or referred to. It is the words that are in question. How we choose to reference the words is completely irrelevant to whether they contradict each other.


T